ga('send', 'pageview');
John Passant

Site menu:

March 2013
« Feb   Apr »



RSS Oz House



Subscribe to us

Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.


Site search


Keep socialist blog En Passant going - donate now
If you want to keep a blog that makes the arguments every day against the ravages of capitalism going and keeps alive the flame of democracy and community, make a donation to help cover my costs. And of course keep reading the blog. To donate click here. Keep socialist blog En Passant going. More... (4)

Sprouting sh*t for almost nothing
You can prove my 2 ex-comrades wrong by donating to my blog En Passant at BSB: 062914 Account: 1067 5257, the Commonwealth Bank in Tuggeranong, ACT. More... (12)

My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. (0)

My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. (0)

Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. (0)

Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)

Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole

Sick kids and paying upfront


Save Medicare

Demonstrate in defence of Medicare at Sydney Town Hall 1 pm Saturday 4 January (0)

Me on Razor Sharp this morning
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace this morning for Razor Sharp. It happens every Tuesday. (0)



Hugo Chavez 1954-2013

Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez Frias has died in hospital after a long fight with cancer. Mike Gonzalez in Socialist Worker UK looks back at Chavez’s life and ideas — and the Venezuela he leaves behind

If revolution is the moment when the masses take to the stage of history, then Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution began on 11 April 2002.

A right wing coup kidnapped him and proclaimed a new government. It lasted barely 48 hours.

Tens of thousands of Chavez supporters surrounded the presidential palace demanding his return.

Later that year, the right launched a bosses’ strike with the intention of paralysing the oil industry on which the country depended. This too was defeated by the mass mobilisation of Chavez’s supporters.

His victory in the presidential elections in 1998 hadn’t had much resonance outside Venezuela at the time. But within the country the effect was dramatic.

Chavez’s election manifesto was anti-imperialist, specifically hostile to the US which had dominated Venezuela throughout the 20th century.

It was nationalist, under the banner of Simon Bolivar, leader of Latin America’s 19th century independence movement. And it promised a reform of the corrupt state machine and the system of patronage it concealed.

The new constitution, passed by a delegate assembly in 1999, provided guarantees of social justice, human rights and the accountability of politicians.

But it was equally true that Chavez was still relying on his military supporters (see below).

He enjoyed mass support among the poor, but that relationship had no organised political expression. And his party, the Fifth Republic Movement, proved to be unaccountable and susceptible to the corruptions of power.

In 2000 Chavez presented himself for new elections under the rewritten constitution.

And between 2002 and 2005 the Bolivarian process took a new and more radical direction. The state oil company was placed under direct state control. Until then it had operated autonomously, like any other multinational.

Its profits then funded programmes of social reforms—in health, education and housing in particular—driven by rank and file organizations called missions.

In 2005, speaking at the World Social Forum, Chavez announced that Venezuela was constructing “21st century socialism”. While it was received joyfully, it remained unclear what it meant.

It was clearly different from Stalinism, emphasising democracy and popular participation, and it was radically anti-imperialist.

Chavez scourged Bush and the US invasion of Iraq at the UN, and began to build organisations of Latin American unity linking other “new left” governments in Bolivia and Ecuador.

And in a series of electoral tests it became clear that Chavez’s support was growing. In 2006 he won the presidency again with over 60 percent of the national vote. Some weeks later he announced the formation of a new party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

Had the revolutionary nationalist become a revolutionary socialist? Chavez and others frequently referred to Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci—as well as Simon Bolivar, and God.

If the transformation was real, then the PSUV would be an expression of power passing directly into the hands of the mass organisations, which was the brief expectation of many on the left.

Nearly six million joined the new party, a testimony to Chavez’s enormous popularity.

But the model of the party adopted by the PSUV appeared to be the Cuban Communist Party, not noted for its democratic character.

The irony of the Bolivarian revolution is that its undoubted social advances were made possible by the rising price of oil.

This funded the social programmes and oil remains the country’s main export earner.

Chavez diversified Venezuela’s international dependencies. China, Russia and Iran came to play an increasingly central role.

Yet, despite the hysteria of the anti-Chavez camp, there was no policy of redistribution.

Some firms were nationalised and compensated at market rates, but for the most part only when they were abandoned or guilty of the most barefaced manipulations.

The year 2006 was in many ways a crossroads. The creation of Latin American blocs such as ALBA and CELAC were expressions of Chavez’s Bolivarianism, his Panamerican vision.

Yet this was not the 21st century socialism, the democratic revolution, that had been promised.

In Venezuela a new elite was emerging, a dominant bureaucracy in red caps and T-shirts. At the same time inefficiencies, the failure to complete major projects, and the incorporation of mass leaders slowly undermined the mass organisations whose struggles had carried Chavez to power.

Every vote confirmed Chavez’s immense popularity. But conversations at street corners testified to an increasing frustration with a new political machine that appeared to function at Chavez’s whim.

There was no open process of decision-making. Instead policies were announced—often without prior notice—on Chavez’s entertaining Sunday morning TV specials. The impression was of a regime without a strategic vision that created policy on the hoof.

Political discussion was increasingly polarised. Public denunciations replaced debate. And power was becoming concentrated on Chavez and his immediate circle.

But it was not the idea of creating an alternative capitalist bloc that had brought Latin America’s mass movements on to the streets. It was the promise of “people’s power” that made Chavez such a potent symbol of resistance and of a different, socialist future.

On the eve of his last journey to Havana for medical treatment, Chavez assured his television audience that he was leaving a strong collective leadership behind him.

In fact the power of the Chavista state was concentrated in Chavez himself. Without him the sectional interests and power hunger of individual members of his government are almost bound to emerge and conflict. No one has the charisma that Chavez undoubtedly possessed.

The alternative that faces Venezuela after Chavez is either the growing use of a state that claims his name but cannot claim his influence, or the re-emergence of a powerful mass movement still ready to struggle for “people’s power”.

He left behind a language of liberation and solidarity, but the structures to turn them into a new and different kind of society have yet to be built.

The outsider who became a legend

On 4 February 1992 a young parachute colonel in Venezuela led a coup. It lasted just 24 hours.

His name was Hugo Chavez Frias. He was arrested, and given a minute on television to call his people back. His announcement that it was over “for now” became legend.

For decades a corrupt two-party bureaucracy had shared power—and the rich pickings from the oil industry.

In 1989, the recently elected president Carlos Andrés Pérez agreed to an austerity programme from the International Monetary Fund. The population of the poor barrios exploded in three days of urban insurrection, the “Caracazo”.

The rising was brutally repressed, but the anger and the protests continued.

Hugo Chavez was born to a poor family in the province of Barinas. His mother was a teacher.

Unlike most of Latin America, the Venezuelan armed forces did offer a career path for the lower middle class and Chavez entered the military academy.

His story has certainly been mythologised, but Chavez bore the unmistakable marks of his background—his chiselled mixed race features, his way of speaking and carrying himself, his genuine love of popular culture.

That is partly why he commanded such profound loyalty among Venezuela’s poor and working classes.

The ferocious hatred of Chavez among the middle classes is for the same reasons—because his racial and social origins marked him as an outsider.

In the academy Chavez rose quickly, and not just because he was good at baseball, which he claimed was his other favoured career.

He gathered around him a small group of young officers from a similar background.

Their main political influence was Douglas Bravo, who led the guerrilla movement in Venezuela. Bravo had split from the Communist party when it abandoned a guerrilla strategy.

His central notion was what he called the “civic-military alliance”—a coalition of dissident military officers, peasant and workers organisations, and an armed wing.

The 1992 coup was intended to be a simultaneous action of all three, but to Bravo’s annoyance Chavez limited it to a military action. He later shifted his strategy in an electoral direction.



Comment from paul walter
Time March 7, 2013 at 8:12 am

Thanks, John,that is the honest, broad sheet summary on the life and time of Hugo Chavez that will be missing from msm.
So much to ponder.
For now I can only say,
“Rest in Peace, Hugo Chavez, the most significant leader so far of the twenty first century.”

Comment from Shane H
Time March 7, 2013 at 8:37 am

So a party of 6 million and bolivar circles are not an organised political expression?

Venezuelan GDP more than doubled and both infant mortality and unemployment almost halved. “extreme poverty” rate fell from 23.4 percent in 1999 to 8.5 percent just a decade later) leaving the country with the third lowest poverty rate in Latin America. College enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled. There’s got to be some redistribution in there somewhere.

Of course there are issues with petrocracy and crime and corruption but I wonder how revolutionaries can’t see the overall dynamic is toward people’s power and against the rule of Capital – with Chavez firmly on the side of the former. How will it turn out? Who knows – this will be decided in struggle but I wonder why revolutionaries are so ambivalent about the process – the mainstream media as voice of Capital is very clear who their enemy is.

Comment from John
Time March 8, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Yes Shane all true. But improved living standards under capitalism aren’t socialism

Comment from Shane H
Time March 8, 2013 at 11:50 pm

No it isn’t because socialism is what we are fighting – the question is one of process – in the current struggle against capital in Venezuela you would side against PSUV?

So in the next election in Venezuela you would vote against PSUV and if not voting then you’d organise a group – who didn’t attend the Bolivar Circles etc – to explain to the Venezuelan masses that Chavez was their enemy or what?

Comment from John
Time March 9, 2013 at 8:33 am

Ah yes, the process is the key. Are there alternative institutions of government set up by the working class or being argued for? Or can one simply lay hold of the capitalist state to implement socialism? Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution seems relevant here.

As for the other questions, the point on the ground would be to explain the need for revolution to overthrow capitalism, i.e the working class setting up its own institutions of government against the current structures. The political and economic crisis that will or is enveloping Venezuela may make that message one with wider appeal.

And why do you assume that what I would do is call for a vote against the PSUV. Of course not. But I would explain the contradictions within PSUV, the need to build the revolutionary current in society and with that flowing through to the PSUV, and building a group committed to working class revolution of the type I mentioned above.

I might even do that within the PSUV. That is a tactical question but one I can’t judge from this distance.

I read somewhere that Under Chavez real wages were lower than before he came to pwoer (or maybe that labour’s share of national income had fallen under him.). Is that correct?

Comment from Shane H
Time March 9, 2013 at 9:46 am

I think Richard has it about right: